Our editorial process

Why this page exists

When you read advice on a study app’s blog, you should know who wrote it, what their expertise is, and how the content was checked before it went live. This page documents how Laxu AI runs its editorial side so readers and search engines can both understand where the content comes from.

How we select contributors

Every named contributor on our authors page meets three criteria:

• Verifiable identity and role. Each contributor has a public LinkedIn profile linked from their author page. Their job title, employer, and educational background are real and current.
• Topical credibility. Contributors only get bylined or attributed as reviewers on topics that match their professional background. A machine-learning engineer reviews AI methodology articles. A corporate strategist contributes on planning and time management. A mobile engineer reviews app comparisons. We do not attribute people to topics outside their domain.
• Explicit consent. No one’s name appears on this site without their direct, recorded consent to be attributed for the specific content they are associated with.

Author vs. Reviewer attribution

We use two distinct attribution patterns depending on how a contributor was involved in the article:

• Author means the contributor drafted or directly shaped the article and the framing reflects their voice and expertise. The byline on the post says “By [Name]” and the Person is the article’s primary author in our structured data.
• Reviewed by means the contributor read the article, validated its technical claims, and contributed insight that appears explicitly in the text — typically as a named section or quoted commentary. Their role is captured as reviewedBy in structured data, alongside the editorial team as author.

We use the Reviewer pattern when the article involves hands-on testing or first-person voice that another contributor cannot honestly claim. For example, an article whose lead reads “I tested 8 study apps” stays authored by the team member who actually did the testing, with a named expert listed as reviewer. We do not switch the byline of testing-voice articles to someone who did not run the test.

How we verify claims

Different kinds of claims get checked differently:

• Product comparisons. Pricing, feature lists, and capabilities of competitor products are checked against the competitor’s current public pricing page and product documentation at the time of writing. We re-verify on updates.
• Technical claims. Statements about how AI systems, sync protocols, spaced-repetition algorithms, or any other technical mechanism work are reviewed by a contributor with relevant engineering or research background before publication.
• Study research claims. Where we cite cognitive-science findings (retrieval practice, spaced repetition, interleaving, the Pomodoro technique), we name the underlying research and date so readers can verify.
• Anything we are uncertain about. Gets flagged with appropriate hedging in the text rather than asserted as fact. We would rather say “in our experience” than fabricate confidence.

How we handle AI-assisted writing

Some article drafting involves AI assistance for structuring, rephrasing, or summarising. When this happens, the final text is read end-to-end and edited by a human before publication, and any expert-attributed section is reviewed by the named contributor for accuracy and tone. We do not publish AI-generated text as if it were written by a named human contributor.

Updates and corrections

Articles are updated when something materially changes — pricing, feature availability, new tools added to a comparison, corrected research citations, or improved explanations. We use the article’s dateModified field to reflect substantive updates. Cosmetic changes (typos, link fixes) do not bump the date.

If you spot something incorrect, email us at contact@laxuai.com with the article URL and the specific claim that needs review. We aim to respond within five business days, and corrections appear on the article with an updated dateModified reflecting the change.

What we do not do

• We do not publish sponsored picks. If a product appears in a comparison, it is because of how it performed in our testing — not because the company paid for placement.
• We do not use affiliate-driven rankings. Where we use affiliate links (for example, on app store pages), the ranking is independent of the affiliate relationship, and we disclose the affiliate context.
• We do not attribute content to people who did not agree to be attributed.
• We do not bulk-update articles to refresh dates without substantive content changes. Date manipulation as a ranking tactic erodes reader trust.